Obama's Tax Plan and the Law of Unintended Consequences

I agree to a certain point, however: Clinton's policies had a large impact on the current crisis. That being said, he did much more good than harm.

I'll agree that he did some good, HIPAA and NAFTA being good examples, but i'm not sure he didn't do more harm than good. The current financial crisis is largely his fault, the 2001 internet advertising recession was parially his fault, and in many ways 9/11 could be viewed as his fault for not taking action earlier when he had opportunity to. There were a number of prior Al-queda attacks previously including one on the world trade center that weren't followed up on as they should have been, as Clinton was busy trying to entirely dissassemble our military. So i'm not sure that overall his policies were a net positive for us long term. However, I'd gladly take bill clinton again over obama.

Do you really think a democratic house and senate will be obstacles to Obama's tax plan?

Although it may seem that Bush was able to push through at lot of actions because of the replubican majaority...at the time a lot of his actions were outside of the congressional process/approval. He exerted or created a number of "executive priviledges" that may not stand up to a democratic majority. He also proposed a number of changes that "his" congress shot down. Remeber that the congress is a self serving body not beholden to the executive branch and is very concerned with re-election before any other priority and having a majority will not necessarily give Obama exactly what he wants. for example there will always be "riders" attached to any bill passed by congress that may actually be oppiste or at least in conflict with what the primary portion of the bill might be. So obama will get some of what he wants while at the same time having to accept 'pork' and other riders that he will object to but has to accept along with what he wants. thats why every president has tried to in some way get a line item veto power. bush tried to bypass this by writing on the bills that he didn't have to abide by it thru executive priviledge. what a BS position, congress passes a law that the courts uphold and the Bush says I don't have top if i don't want to..where is the concept of obeying the law?

Although it may seem that Bush was able to push through at lot of actions because of the replubican majaority...at the time a lot of his actions were outside of the congressional process/approval. He exerted or created a number of "executive priviledges" that may not stand up to a democratic majority. He also proposed a number of changes that "his" congress shot down. Remeber that the congress is a self serving body not beholden to the executive branch and is very concerned with re-election before any other priority and having a majority will not necessarily give Obama exactly what he wants. for example there will always be "riders" attached to any bill passed by congress that may actually be oppiste or at least in conflict with what the primary portion of the bill might be. So obama will get some of what he wants while at the same time having to accept 'pork' and other riders that he will object to but has to accept along with what he wants. thats why every president has tried to in some way get a line item veto power. bush tried to bypass this by writing on the bills that he didn't have to abide by it thru executive priviledge. what a BS position, congress passes a law that the courts uphold and the Bush says I don't have top if i don't want to..where is the concept of obeying the law?

9/11 didn't hurt Bush's ability to push through bills either. I see what you're saying though. I have a hard time believing that Dems in congress wouldn't support Obama's spread the wealth plan.

9/11 didn't hurt Bush's ability to push through bills either. I see what you're saying though. I have a hard time believing that Dems in congress wouldn't support Obama's spread the wealth plan.

The Dems in Congress have the wealth...the Kennedy's just to name one. There are very few "normal/middle class/average income" if any for that matter. Do you really think they are going to vote to spread their wealth? I don't think so.

Don't get me labeled here as I have already mailed my ballot off and this is the first time I marked the slot for president since I voted for Nixon (look how that turned out).

I'm a conservative democrat or a liberal republican...mostly I'm an independent who could not support another 4 years of the current type of administration 9gives you a hint).

I'm just trying to temper my idealism/romanticism with a healthy dose of optimism/pessimisim and hope that it gets better soon!!!!

Yes, but the damage was already done. I read that welfare helped destroy the nuclear family in urban areas due to the fact that benefits were often tied to being single mothers.

I'd say the best way to ensure the poor stay poor is engender an attitude that if you're a single mother, you will get paid for your troubles. Culture hasn't changed in many urban areas. I see it in Baltimore all the time. 40 year old grandmothers are not a good thing.

According to your graph, the dramatic dip back to pre 1970 levels happened before Bush Jr. was ever sworn into office.

So the rise would apparently have been nurtured during the 12 straight years of Reagan/Bush Sr.

According to your graph, the dramatic dip back to pre 1970 levels happened before Bush Jr. was ever sworn into office.

So the rise would apparently have been nurtured during the 12 straight years of Reagan/Bush Sr.

I don't think you can attribute welfare rates to a president. The program was empowered through LBJs Great Society in the late 60s, however, you can see from the graph that it really took off in the early 70s after he left. You'll see there's approximately 25 years between 1970 and 1996, where 5% of the American population is on welfare.

5%. That's a huge number of people. That IS an inner city culture. I'd say that 25 years is more than enough time to engender values in a segment of the population, and if they're getting free money, that value is not working, its that the government is responsible for your subsistence.

I'm not saying this is the only cause of class mobility being lost in the United States, but 5% of the poorest people in the country, losing the values of family, work, and independence certainly didn't help matters.

I don't think you can attribute welfare rates to a president. The program was empowered through LBJs Great Society in the late 60s, however, you can see from the graph that it really took off in the early 70s after he left. You'll see there's approximately 25 years between 1970 and 1996, where 5% of the American population is on welfare.

5%. That's a huge number of people. That IS an inner city culture. I'd say that 25 years is more than enough time to engender values in a segment of the population, and if they're getting free money, that value is not working, its that the government is responsible for your subsistence.

I'm not saying this is the only cause of class mobility being lost in the United States, but 5% of the poorest people in the country, losing the values of family, work, and independence certainly didn't help matters.

Of course you can attribute this to administrative policies.
Either the implementations empower individuals to wean themselves of dependence or they don't. In between those two distinct opposites the pendulum is definitely swung one way or the other.

I'll agree that he did some good, HIPAA and NAFTA being good examples, but i'm not sure he didn't do more harm than good. The current financial crisis is largely his fault, the 2001 internet advertising recession was parially his fault, and in many ways 9/11 could be viewed as his fault for not taking action earlier when he had opportunity to. There were a number of prior Al-queda attacks previously including one on the world trade center that weren't followed up on as they should have been, as Clinton was busy trying to entirely dissassemble our military. So i'm not sure that overall his policies were a net positive for us long term. However, I'd gladly take bill clinton again over obama.

Well, let us not elaborate too much, lest we appear bias. Clinton's administration did not pull the trigger - so to speak - on al-Queda when they had that chance, however: They handed their intelligence to the Bush Administration on a silver platter.

9/11 was the result of a lack of foresight and arrogant foreign policy approach by Bush and his advisors - really, a misinterpretation of secret intelligence that so characterized that particular administration as a whole.

In terms of Military, I believe that is simply factually incorrect: In 1999 Clinton called for a 110-billion increase in Military spending over six years; disassemble - or even attempt to disassemble - the Military he did not. While this is a common misconception about the Clinton administration it is simple factually inaccurate. And, in fact, Republicans at the time lauded that particular portion of the Clinton Act (though disliked others, naturally).

Finally, in respects to the current financial crisis, Clinton's introduction of several pieces of legislation that 'encouraged' large, government-backed Insurance Firms (such as Freddie Mac) to aggressively loan did in fact contribute here. However, I find it quite ironic that as such a proponent of free-markets, rational self-interest, and a 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps mentality', you readily abandon the aforementioned viewpoints in this scenario; apparently, in your eyes, former President Clinton forced individuals to take on mortgages they could not afford!

In terms of Military, I believe that is simply factually incorrect: In 1999 Clinton called for a 110-billion increase in Military spending over six years; disassemble - or even attempt to disassemble - the Military he did not. While this is a common misconception about the Clinton administration it is simple factually inaccurate. And, in fact, Republicans at the time lauded that particular portion of the Clinton Act (though disliked others, naturally).

But this was after his major decreases that funded the large majority of the increased in spending on welfare and education. He cut military spending by a large % his first term. His second term was mainly a fix of some his worst mistakes of his first term....but thats also consistent with most two term Presidents.

...plus much of this arguemtn is based on the premise the President actually does have a major impact on the economy. Looking back thorugh history, they rarely have a major effect. There was nothing Clinton did during his terms that had a major impact on the economy (during that time) and as you can see most economic problems/fixes have a pretty long delay in terms of effects.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

Well, let us not elaborate too much, lest we appear bias. Clinton's administration did not pull the trigger - so to speak - on al-Queda when they had that chance, however: They handed their intelligence to the Bush Administration on a silver platter.

9/11 was the result of a lack of foresight and arrogant foreign policy approach by Bush and his advisors - really, a misinterpretation of secret intelligence that so characterized that particular administration as a whole.

In terms of Military, I believe that is simply factually incorrect: In 1999 Clinton called for a 110-billion increase in Military spending over six years; disassemble - or even attempt to disassemble - the Military he did not. While this is a common misconception about the Clinton administration it is simple factually inaccurate. And, in fact, Republicans at the time lauded that particular portion of the Clinton Act (though disliked others, naturally).

Finally, in respects to the current financial crisis, Clinton's introduction of several pieces of legislation that 'encouraged' large, government-backed Insurance Firms (such as Freddie Mac) to aggressively loan did in fact contribute here. However, I find it quite ironic that as such a proponent of free-markets, rational self-interest, and a 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps mentality', you readily abandon the aforementioned viewpoints in this scenario; apparently, in your eyes, former President Clinton forced individuals to take on mortgages they could not afford!

apparently, in your eyes, former President Clinton forced individuals to take on mortgages they could not afford!

Well the CRA forced the banks to write loans to unqualified individuals. Part of the reason the people were unqualified for loans of the size of mortgage loans was because they showed no history of responsible credit use. So although Clinton (and that is showing my partisanship as the republican led congress is also to blame) didn't force individuals to take the loans, he did force the banks to write the loans to them which they previously wouldn't do. My feeling is that the bailout shouldn't have happened, at best the government should have given a special exemption for allowing banks to write off double their actual loss on forclosures if they were all complete by say 12/31/2008 and flushed all this out of the system. The problem hasn't solely been the foreclosues themselves, but its the length of time they have been dragging on, and the slow nature of the sales. The banks are not enjoying the losses they have to take, so they are slow on sales, slow to lower prices which is extending the length of time this will go on.

I feel that anyone who bought a house they can't afford should be foreclosed on. Its not a case of "people loosing their homes" as for the most part its not like they have been in the home more than a few years. Its no different than someone making 40k a year somehow managing to get financing approved for a Maserati, and realizes they can't make the $1500 a month payment - it gets repossessed.

And as far as dissasembling the military, as a percentage of GDP our spending on military went down significantly. So although there was an increase that wasn't keeping up with GDP.

But this was after his major decreases that funded the large majority of the increased in spending on welfare and education. He cut military spending by a large % his first term. His second term was mainly a fix of some his worst mistakes of his first term....but thats also consistent with most two term Presidents.

True, I suppose I should have clarified: In aggregate terms, Clinton did not deconstruct the Military.

...plus much of this arguemtn is based on the premise the President actually does have a major impact on the economy. Looking back thorugh history, they rarely have a major effect. There was nothing Clinton did during his terms that had a major impact on the economy (during that time) and as you can see most economic problems/fixes have a pretty long delay in terms of effects.

The next President will have less substantial impact on the direction of the economy than many Presidents of TNCs, and Supra-nationals; the economy, in some respects, is a 'behind-the-scenes' affair, while being presented in large parts as being driven by spontaneous order.

That being said, the lack of regulation on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during his administration directly precipitated the current mortgage crisis. Lending Institutions do not make a profit on Maverick tactics; they stay afloat by making investments they will receive a return on. Lending to whomever is not a market-driven choice, but somewhat the result of Government action.

True, I suppose I should have clarified: In aggregate terms, Clinton did not deconstruct the Military.

In his first 4 years he certainly "gutted it". Tax increases and cuts in miltiary spending created his surplus that so many people like to talk about. That's about the bulk of the Clinton economic policy in terms of balancing the budget. Much of the later numbers are inlfated due to the internet boom.

That being said, the lack of regulation on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae during his administration directly precipitated the current mortgage crisis.

Which is similar to asking Wall Street to regulate Wall Street....

The sad part is the people who created this mess are creating the fix for it and most people simply have no idea that its occurring.

Lending Institutions do not make a profit on Maverick tactics; they stay afloat by making investments they will receive a return on. Lending to whomever is not a market-driven choice, but somewhat the result of Government action.

I feel that anyone who bought a house they can't afford should be foreclosed on. Its not a case of "people loosing their homes" as for the most part its not like they have been in the home more than a few years. Its no different than someone making 40k a year somehow managing to get financing approved for a Maserati, and realizes they can't make the $1500 a month payment - it gets repossessed.

The difference is the Maserati doesn't have an effect on the value of your neighbors car.

Foreclosures kill surrounding property values.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

In his first 4 years he certainly "gutted it". Tax increases and cuts in miltiary spending created his surplus that so many people like to talk about. That's about the bulk of the Clinton economic policy in terms of balancing the budget. Much of the later numbers are inlfated due to the internet boom.

First four years, most definitely! However, as you said, in his later term this trend was in large part rectified.

Which is similar to asking Wall Street to regulate Wall Street....

The sad part is the people who created this mess are creating the fix for it and most people simply have no idea that its occurring.

Very unfortunate, indeed. Wall Street has more blame in this than either the populous, or any administration, however; we must always remain aware to all factors that may precipitate an event. Greed + Government encouragement for unsound loans + an 'American Ideal' of home ownership = current situation.

...but in a historical perspective, this was a perfect storm that happens very rarely.

One must speak the truth where it is needed! While I am by no means a free-market propagator, banks are the business of making profit vis-a-vis exchanging values; they are not going to habitually exchange high-value investments with low-value returns without some type of external encouragement. Interest Rates are all well-and-fine as profit mechanisms, but they do not serve a function without the initial loan being payed back in full!

True, but most of the property values over the last x years have been unrealistically inflated, so this is all part of a necessary correction.

Not necessarily. The majority of the value increase was 2002-2005. Many of these values now are dropping to pre 2000 values. You are seeing a half decade of home buyers get screwed....because of a 2-4% default rate.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

First four years, most definitely! However, as you said, in his later term this trend was in large part rectified.

Wasn't even close. It was minimal at best.

Very unfortunate, indeed. Wall Street has more blame in this than either the populous, or any administration, however; we must always remain aware to all factors that may precipitate an event. Greed + Government encouragement for unsound loans + an 'American Ideal' of home ownership = current situation.

It was more government led to greed exploiting it. The ideology behind this wasn't greed. It was a push to be more fair all the way back to Carter. Liberal policies almost always have "good intentions" but often contrast reality.

One must speak the truth where it is needed! While I am by no means a free-market propagator, banks are the business of making profit vis-a-vis exchanging values; they are not going to habitually exchange high-value investments with low-value returns without some type of external encouragement.

In short, fines.

For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

It was more government led to greed exploiting it. The ideology behind this wasn't greed. It was a push to be more fair all the way back to Carter. Liberal policies almost always have "good intentions" but often contrast reality.

there is no fairness in injecting socialism into one of the core areas of capitalism - lending + credit.... The entire purpose of the CRA was in theory to avoid discriminatory lending yet the only evidence of discriminatory lending was a single faulty study done which showed low income blacks as disproportionately being denied loans. When the study was reviewed and credit scores were counted as part of the study, there were no signs of discrimination.

It was more government led to greed exploiting it. The ideology behind this wasn't greed. It was a push to be more fair all the way back to Carter. Liberal policies almost always have "good intentions" but often contrast reality.

Well, this is exactly what I stated, lol.

The encouragement for shaky loans was government-backed, due to the ideology that each American should own a home. This drive, as you have stated, extended far back prior to Clinton. The greed aspect was the private sector capitalizing (some would say, rightfully so) on this foolish government initiative.

Almost every governmental body in the 'free world' operates under the assumption that their policies are 'good intentions'; the absurdity of how each position is disconnected from reality is ubiquitous as well. Assuming one position or the other is more connected with reality is an act of bias, rather than objectivity.

Not necessarily. The majority of the value increase was 2002-2005. Many of these values now are dropping to pre 2000 values.

Not quite.

I bought my house (1600 sq.ft, 3BR, 2BA, single-floor) in June, 2000. By 2006, the street value went up from 140K to 170k. 5 years before, my sister had sold a house in the same neighborhood for slightly more than half what I paid for mine: 75k. She bought it around '88, when this was "a neighborhood in recovery", for roughly 38k.

Right now, the much-larger house next to me (5BR, 3BA, 3 floors, in-law suite) has been on the market for months, and they're trying to get 195k. The 'value' of my house now is somewhere between 95k & 120k - at best, 10k less than I owe on it. At worst, the amount of the cash down-payment my ex-wife stole from me.